DiscreteRate
Server Details
Run DRS demos (Fast-Slow Drain, Hamburger Duo, Valdez Tanker) and explore the paradigm.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Every tool has a unique purpose: describe_demo for details, explain_* for conceptual tutorials, list_drs_demos for discovery, and run_* for execution. No functional overlap.
All tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., describe_demo, run_fast_slow_drain), making the tool's action clear.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for an educational simulation server. Each tool serves a distinct role without redundancy or unnecessary complexity.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: discover demos, learn concepts, get detailed descriptions, and run simulations. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of explanation and demonstration.
Available Tools
9 toolsdescribe_demoARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Full per-demo write-up: history, what it teaches, what to expect from the run_* output. Use this to ground the user before triggering a sim run, or to explain WHY the demo exists when the user asks a conceptual question about it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| demo | Yes | Which DRS demo to act on. See list_drs_demos for the catalog. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent. Description adds content details (history, teaches, output expectations). No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-param, no-output-schema tool, description covers what the tool returns (history, teachings, expected output) and usage context. Complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a well-described param (enum + reference to list_drs_demos). Description adds no extra param context beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a 'Full per-demo write-up: history, what it teaches, what to expect from the run_* output,' distinguishing it from listing (list_drs_demos) or running (run_*) tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly guides when to use: 'to ground the user before triggering a sim run, or to explain WHY the demo exists.' Implies not for listing or execution, but doesn't name alternatives directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
explain_des_vs_drs_event_complexityARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return a focused write-up of the event-count complexity differences between DES and DRS, with the worked Fast-Slow Drain numbers (Continuous ~thousands vs DES ~500 vs DRS 10 events for the same 100-minute model). Use this when the user wants the practitioner-visible payoff of DRS — the 50× event-count reduction at the boundary-transition layer. Deterministic text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds 'Deterministic text,' which aligns with idempotentHint and clarifies output nature. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. Every sentence earns its place: first states what it returns, second gives usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully informs agents about purpose and usage. No missing information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adequately compensates by explaining functionality without needing param details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a focused write-up on DES vs DRS event-count complexity with specific numbers. It distinguishes from siblings like explain_discrete_rate_simulation by focusing on the comparison and the practical payoff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants the practitioner-visible payoff of DRS — the 50× event-count reduction at the boundary-transition layer.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidelines, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
explain_discrete_rate_simulationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return a textbook-tier explainer of Discrete Rate Simulation: how it differs from DES and CT, the three primitives (Constraint / Buffer / Interrupt), paradigm integration via F2I / I2F. Use this for 'what is DRS?' / 'how is this different from DES?' / 'where does DRS fit in the simulation landscape?' style questions. Deterministic text — no engine call, no RNG.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it produces deterministic text without engine calls or RNG, which goes beyond the annotations to clarify the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: one to state what the tool returns, another to specify usage context and behavior. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its deterministic nature. It is complete for its intended purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% and baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states it returns a 'textbook-tier explainer' of Discrete Rate Simulation, listing specific topics (primitive, parity) and targeted questions, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like explain_des_vs_drs_event_complexity or explain_paradigm_integration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: for 'what is DRS?', 'how is this different from DES?', 'where does DRS fit?' style questions, and clarifies it is 'Deterministic text — no engine call, no RNG', guiding the agent to use this for explanation rather than simulation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
explain_paradigm_integrationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return an explainer of paradigm integration — how DRS handles systems with both flows and items via F2I (Flow-to-Item) and I2F (Item-to-Flow) primitives. Use this when the user asks about Valdez-Tanker-style mixed-paradigm systems or 'how do flows and items coexist'. Deterministic text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, side-effect-free operation. The description adds 'Deterministic text', which provides additional behavioral clarity beyond annotations, confirming output stability.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Perfectly sized for quick agent comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type ('explainer', 'Deterministic text') and usage context. Combined with annotations, it gives agents all necessary information to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter info; baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns an explainer of paradigm integration, specifically DRS handling flows and items via F2I and I2F primitives. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like explain_three_primitives, which focus on basic primitives, not integration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks about Valdez-Tanker-style mixed-paradigm systems or 'how do flows and items coexist'—providing clear context for when to invoke. However, it does not mention when not to use or list sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
explain_three_primitivesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return a focused write-up of the three DRS modeling primitives: Constraint (rate-limiter), Buffer (accumulated state), Interrupt (stoppage). Use this when the user asks specifically about modeling primitives or how to spell a system in DRS. Deterministic text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'Deterministic text' beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). This informs the agent that the output is consistent across invocations, which is useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines the tool's purpose, second sentence provides usage guidance and determinism. Perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple informational tool with no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains what is returned, when to use it, and its deterministic nature. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it returns a focused write-up of the three DRS modeling primitives: Constraint, Buffer, Interrupt. It clearly identifies the specific resource and distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like explain_des_vs_drs_event_complexity or explain_discrete_rate_simulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes explicit guidance: 'Use this when the user asks specifically about modeling primitives or how to spell a system in DRS.' This clearly defines when to invoke, though it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_drs_demosARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List the three canonical DRS demos (Fast-Slow Drain · Hamburger Duo · Valdez Tanker). Each demo is documented in academic literature and reproducible against the live engine via the run_* tools. Use this to discover what's available before calling describe_demo or a run_* tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that demos are documented in academic literature and reproducible via run_* tools, giving useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two terse sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by specifying what the list contains, but does not need to elaborate on parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists three specific canonical DRS demos, naming them explicitly. It distinguishes from siblings by advising use before describe_demo or run_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('discover what's available before calling describe_demo or a run_* tool'), providing clear context and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_fast_slow_drainBRead-onlyInspect
Run the Fast-Slow Drain (FSD) demo — Damiron-Nastasi 2008 oscillating tank. The canonical DRS-vs-DES event-count demonstration. Returns engine output including the event counts (DES vs DRS), tank-level trace, and cycle summary. ANTI-FABRICATION: numbers come from a real DRS engine run; quote verbatim, don't recall from training data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| simulation_minutes | No | Total simulation horizon in minutes. Default 100. Range 10-1000. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions returns but not side effects. The anti-fabrication note is useful but not behavioral. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no fluff. The first two describe purpose and output, the third adds a meta-instruction. Could be slightly more structured, but efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose and basic output, but lacks information on error conditions, interpretation of outputs, or context relative to sibling demos. Given the tool's single parameter and no output schema, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter simulation_minutes, which has a clear description and constraints. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs the Fast-Slow Drain demo, specifying it's an oscillating tank and the canonical DRS-vs-DES event-count demonstration. It provides a clear verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling demo tools like run_hamburger_duo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other demo runs). The description implies it's the canonical demonstration, but lacks explicit when/when-not context or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_hamburger_duoARead-onlyInspect
Run the Hamburger Duo (HAM) demo — Andy Siprelle's 5-stage finite-source line, executed as both DES and DRS implementations on the same model so the event-count and throughput numbers can be compared apples-to-apples. Returns engine output for the side-by-side run. ANTI-FABRICATION: numbers come from a real engine run; quote verbatim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| simulation_days | No | Days to simulate. Default 7. Range 1-30. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are present, and the description adds critical behavioral context: output comes from a real engine run and must be quoted verbatim, with an anti-fabrication warning. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a note; every sentence is valuable. Purpose is front-loaded, and the anti-fabrication note is important. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description explains what the tool does and what it returns (engine output), including the behavioral note. Slightly vague on output format, but sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter (simulation_days), which already provides description, default, and range. The description does not add any additional parameter information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it runs the Hamburger Duo demo, a specific 5-stage finite-source line, executed in both DES and DRS for comparison. The verb 'run' and resource 'Hamburger Duo demo' are specific, and it differentiates from sibling tools like run_valdez_tanker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage when comparing DES and DRS implementations, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Sibling tools exist, but no alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_valdez_tankerBRead-onlyInspect
Run the Valdez Tanker (VALD) demo — Koelling-Remy 1983 Alaska Pipeline model, the paradigm-integration motivator. Crude flows continuously into the Valdez Marine Terminal storage tank (Flow); tankers arrive discretely to drain it (Item); DRS handles both via F2I / I2F transitions. Returns engine output including tanker arrival/departure events and tank-level trace. ANTI-FABRICATION: numbers come from a real engine run; quote verbatim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| simulation_days | No | Days to simulate. Default 30. Range 1-90. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that output includes 'tanker arrival/departure events and tank-level trace' and includes an anti-fabrication warning. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authorization needs, or other behavioral traits beyond what is already in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise, with four sentences front-loading the purpose. The anti-fabrication note is relevant but slightly extraneous. Still, every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description adequately explains what the demo does and what output to expect. However, it lacks detail on how to interpret the return or any prerequisites, making it adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a clear parameter (simulation_days) including default, min, max, and description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('Run'), the specific demo ('Valdez Tanker'), and provides context about the model (Koelling-Remy 1983, Alaska Pipeline, paradigm-integration motivator). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run_fast_slow_drain' and 'run_hamburger_duo' by naming a unique demo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description only explains what the tool does, not when an agent should choose it over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!